JB/124/030/002

Click Here To Edit

2
Reasons Panopticon Bill Valuation

what I propose accordingly is, that the Jury enquiry
of the Jury should take for its object the difference
between the time's price of that time, and that of
the present: but that the function of the Jury should it should go no farther.
be limited to this enquiry.

3
2. Intervening
improvement

2. The other allegation that might be made is supposition is
that in the contract betwixt the giving that Verdict and the
present that since the giving that verdict, money
has been laid out upon the land: which being the
case, the land is no longer the same estate. The
consequence I admitt, if the matter of fact supposition were
true: but I do not believe that it is, or that any
such allegation to that effect would be made.

4
Answer
1. The right to
claim indemnity reimbursement
denied.

If it were made, there are two answers to it.
One is that it was the folly (to use the law-expression)
of the Proprietors to lay out money upon
land of which they knew themselves to have been
forejudged in due course of law: and to which to this
moment they have never been either expressly or tacitly
restored.

5.
2. Reimbursement
offered.

But secondly, not to use this re a plea which
might be thought to savour of rigour, I make this
answer which is a short one. Let Lord Spencer
give me in any account of money so laid out
by him I will pay it at his word, in addition
to the difference between the time's price. No use therefore
of a new valuation de novo for this purpose.

Identifier: | JB/124/030/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 124.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering	1-5
Box	124	Main Headings	panopticon
Folio number	030	Info in main headings field	panopticon bill valuation
Image	002	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	2
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	d1 / d2
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	41719
Box Contents